By now, if you have been paying attention to the pronouncements of Hizzoner, you know that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg really dislikes, among many other things, guns. He also appears to have engaged in a one-man crusade to convince politicians that, if the President of the United States can be reelected without the support of the National Rifle Association, so too can the most rural Congressman or Southern Senator. The logic of that belief is debatable, but what is not debatable is the logic that the NRA would go out of their way to defend the indefensible  even the personal ownership of a small cannon designed to fire nuclear-tipped artillery shells. Or, at least, so sayeth the mayor.

The U.S. Army has a rifle  they call it a rifle, I would call it a cannon; its attached to the front of a tank or a moving vehicle, Bloomberg said on Tuesdays Morning Joe on MSNBC. It shoots a nuclear warhead. The NRA would say, Oh, thats a gun. And people have a right to have that.

Where is the limit here, Bloomberg asked to co-host Mika Brzezinski as she nodded sagely in resigned disapproval.

Im no expert on fire arms, but I would venture that the limit of what the NRA would defend in terms of an individuals Second Amendment rights ends several miles before nuclear cannon. But we are now deep into the hyperbole phase of national tragedy  when those with axes to grind or pet projects to advance have already made their case many times over, and flail in search of new and more resonating arguments. Next, we enter the long-anticipated terrible analogy phase.

At a bare minimum people should have the right to bear the same arms as those they pay to keep law & order (the police). In England the cop doesn’t have a gun, and the subjects don’t either. In the US our cops are acting more as a paramilitary (helicopters, armored vehicles, and such); whatever they’re packing their employers (us, the taxpayers who pay them and buy their equipment) should have the right to pack as well.

Ayone who doesn’t understand why a government would want to disarm its citizenry really has their head up their arse; we were born of a revolt, and have never forgotten that.

Wow. Bloomscum is not illiterate, so he knows what “arms” means. So he is using classic communist propaganda. What a shock. NOT.

BTW, I believe Letter of Marque are still good law (look it up). Of course obastard would never sign one, but if a Constitutionalist ever recaptued the White House (unlikely), wouldn’t that blow this statist’s gaskets...

11
posted on 12/19/2012 9:12:30 PM PST
by piytar
(The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)

Too bad that Asian fellow pushed in front of the train didn’t have a cannon; he could have at least hidden under the carriage while Obama’s son was ranting & raving (because everyone knows that the NYPD, which might give shoes to homeless people, won’t stop them from killing you for fear of losing their badges, pensions, and freedom).

There is no safer person with whom to trust a “nuclear cannon” than little ol’ me. You, on the other hand, can’t even be trusted with a ball point pen. You’ve hurt more people with your signature than have ever been killed by “nuclear cannons.”

BTW, it would be a cold day in hell the day our mayor told me I couldn’t buy a certain size soft drink with my own money! In fact, there is no way he would even try that. He would be hanged by his balls downtown on the square by people much crazier than me. We don’t like being dictated to by some prissy little nanny stater.

You are off on a tangent leading nowhere. The complete term, 'keep and bear arms' has a very long history that goes WAY BACK ~ possibly to the dawn of time, and most likely to the dawn of Indo-European time at a minimum.

In the beginning there were two classes of people ~ the warriors who owned everything and everybody, including all the armaments, sharp sticks, knives, garottes, whatever. The other class consisted of everybody else. They had no rights.

Over time members of the under class were taken up into the ruling class as warriors themselves ~ possibly with a rank system.

When you entered that class you had the right to 'keep arms' ~ which included armor, a warhorse, a chariot, arms bearers, folks to tend to the manufacture of weapons (black smiths, sword makers, arrow makers, bow makers, etc.) .

That wasn't the end of things. The second half is 'bear arms' and that meant you can bear arms on your behalf, the benefit of your family, for your friends, for the neighbors, for your estates, for your liege lord, or cappo di tutti cappo, or other high noble, right on up to the king. You could walk out there with your sword, spears, bows, arrows, baggage trains, helpers, weapons makers, sword bearers, war horses, and USE THEM. Plus, being a gentleman and all you had the privilege of using the king's own courts of law to settle disputes ~ and the way higher nobles, like kings, enforced their decisions was through 'force of arms'. This one little tidbit ~ right to go to court, meant you could make criminal and civil charges against others ~ testify ~ maybe participate as a judge or as a baliff! Without that right to bear arms you couldn't go to court.

Jews living in early Medieval Christian or Islamic states around the Mediterranean had no right to keep and bear arms until about the 1700s when the king of France opened the ranks of his White Coats to Jewish soldiers. Actually, Jews had no military caste from some time in the 200s until well into the 1700s ~ it had to be rebuilt little by little, a right at a time, in baby steps ~ and those folks were well aware of what the right to keep and bear arms meant.

BTW, it doesn't mean just the right to carry around a weapon ~ you could have a ship of war, you could have a chariot and war horses ~ you certainly wouldn't tote them on your back, but if you had no right to a chariot and war horses they'd probably hunt you down and slaughter you should you show up with such a thing!

Those who know their European and Middle Eastern history can read through the Constitution and pick out every last single item that was, at one time or the other, a 'privilege' of the nobility!

Those who were not nobles had no 'privilege'. With the United States of America we had a novus ordo seclorum ~ where ALL had the rights and privileges of kings and nobles ~ certainly an outcome worth rejoicing!

So, back to the 'right to keep and bear arms' ~ it's about all your rights. This one declaration means you are not a peasant, but you can go to court and use the armed might of the state to protect your interests against everyone else ~ you can serve in the army ~ you can defend yourself ~ you can protect your children from being seized and sold as slaves ~................ and you can bear arms however big they are, or however small, without questioning by any other authority. You are free.

This is not something any Democrat can ever understand, particularly not a dunderhead like Obama and his crowd.

Thanks for the heads-up. If I need an organization to defend my
right to own a nuclear cannon I will keep the NRA in mind. In
the mean time can you please direct me to an organization that
will defend my right to purchase and consume a 32 oz soda?

Thanks for your post. Mark Levin was saying today he hates the term “Gun Control” - it isn’t gun control - it is CITIZEN Control. Goes right with your post - thanks again, will be sharing it with my kids.

41
posted on 12/19/2012 11:08:27 PM PST
by 21twelve
(So I [God] gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices. Psalm 81:12)

Agreed, I think that is a good rule of thumb for the limits placed on ciilian arms ownership, the civilians should have access to the same equipment used by ANYONE in ANY goverenment agency who has the potential to interface with them.

It would also give the goverment EXTRA INCENTIVE to actually enforce posse comitatis...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.